↓ Skip to main content

Investigating the effect of a 3-month workplace-based pedometer-driven walking programme on health-related quality of life in meat processing workers: a feasibility study within a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating the effect of a 3-month workplace-based pedometer-driven walking programme on health-related quality of life in meat processing workers: a feasibility study within a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1736-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suliman Mansi, Stephan Milosavljevic, Steve Tumilty, Paul Hendrick, Chris Higgs, David G Baxter

Abstract

In New Zealand, meat processing populations face many health problems as a result of the nature of work in meat processing industries. The primary aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of using a pedometer-based intervention to increase physical activity and improve health-related outcomes in a population of meat processing workers. A single-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted. A convenience sample of meat workers (n = 58; mean age 41.0 years; range: 18-65) participated in the trial. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups. Intervention participants (n = 29) utilized a pedometer to self monitor their activity, whilst undertaking a brief intervention, and educational material. Control participants (n = 29) received educational material only. The primary outcomes of ambulatory activity, and health-related quality of life, were evaluated at baseline, immediately following the 12-week intervention and three months post-intervention. Fifty three participants completed the program (91.3% adherence). Adherence with the intervention group was high, 93% (n = 27/29), and this group increased their mean daily step count from 5993 to 9792 steps per day, while the control group steps changed from 5788 to 6551 steps per day from baseline. This increase in step counts remained significant within the intervention group p < 0.005; at three months post-intervention representing a 59% increase over baseline scores. There were significant group changes with large effect sizes for step count change (d = 1.94) and self-reported physical activity (p < 0.005; d = 2.59) at 12 weeks intervention. Further, results showed non-significant between-group differences in physical component (PCS) and mental component (MCS) scores (PCS: p = 0.44; MGD = 0.99, 95% CI, -1.6 to 3.6; ES = 0.14, and MCS: p = 0.90, MGD = 0.15; 95% CI, -2.3 to 2.6, ES = 0.022) at 12 weeks intervention. This research provides important information for a larger (RCT) in the future: results demonstrated that a pedometer-driven walking intervention in combination with goal setting, and self-monitoring supported by weekly e-mails are feasible and potentially effective in increasing step count within the workplace setting over the short term. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12613000087752 .

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 169 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 18%
Student > Bachelor 30 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 13%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Postgraduate 9 5%
Other 24 14%
Unknown 36 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 28 16%
Psychology 19 11%
Sports and Recreations 15 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Other 27 16%
Unknown 41 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2015.
All research outputs
#11,065,969
of 18,846,954 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#8,332
of 12,466 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#111,320
of 238,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,846,954 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,466 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them